NA
Trafford Park Security Initiative project manager Campbell Latchford has a background in project management. He told Professional Security that the Guardsafe scheme in Trafford park, Manchester is going well. ‘Certainly as far as the business community is concerned, they welcome it with open arms. They are prepared to locally put a condition within any tenders for manned guarding in future that they will have to be licenced under the Guardsafe scheme.’ Trafford area PC Nigel Brown set up Guardsafe under the TPSI umbrella. Police encourage Trafford park businesses to use accredited manned guarding firms. Supt Dave Ryder of Stretford sub-division said: ‘As a result of the training programme, the security guards will now be more equipped to help the police reduce commercial crime in the area.’
<br><br>
Guardsafe partnership
<br><br>
Under the Trafford Park Security Initiative, the public and private sector is working together on Guardsafe, a voluntary registration scheme for security officers on the giant Trafford Park business estate. In the initiative are manned guarding firms, Greater Manchester Police, and the local authority Trafford Metropolitan Council (who carry out the badging). The first 20 guards have gained their licences, and Guardsafe badges – which were worn on the lapels of George Mensah and Geoff Deane of guarding firm Noble Security, attending the JSIC event. Noble are keen to see the scheme spread more widely. Widnes-based Noble provide the SITO training courses. The first three-day course ran in January; courses have been running monthly on Trafford Park since. Takers are from the proverbial one-man bands to the biggest firms, reports Campbell Latchford, the TPSI project manager (see article, left). Our December issue reported how TPSI has a £456,000 Home Office grant, partly for patrol wardens, partly for Guardsafe.
<br><br>
Last month we reported the new chairman and chief executive of the Security Industry Authority, the quango that will bring in industry regulation and licences. This month we bring reaction from the industry to the news.
<br><br>
‘A sick joke’ commented one reader to the news that the new appointees to the SIA were coming from outside. That disgusted reader was of the view that the security industry has managed without regulation and that the licencing to come from the Private Security Industry Act is a ‘mish mash’. Others readers voiced reservations that the chairman and chief executive of the Security Industry Authority were new to the industry. However, even self-admitted cynics admitted that the new appointees would not be tainted by any past associations. On the whole, those voicing views were ready to separate the individuals from the system, and see what fist the appointees made of the task. Quite apart from the merits of the individuals – who the government clearly feel are up to the job – doubts remained over the concept of licences. Can anybody make licences and regulation work’
<br><br>
Rod Repton of investigators and security trainers Repton Security of Derby, as a Derbyshire Detective Chief Inspector dealing with compliants and discipline dealt with Molly Meacher. She is about to give up her job as Deputy Chair of the Police Complaints Authority – the independent body that looks into complaints against police officers – to become chairman of the SIA. Rod Repton says: ‘I am sure she will do a tremendous job in her new role. She’s approachable, very switched on. She’s a problem-solver, she’s a doer. She’s very professional.’
<br><br>
Nick van der Bijl, security manager at Southmead Hospital in north Bristol says: ‘Once again, post 9-11 and the supposed threat to democracy, personal safety and increased violent crime on the streets, selecting someone with a good knowledge of the security industry, as opposed to someone who has a law enforcement background, has been ignored and is now regulated by two people who probably have pre-conceived ideas about security. Given the opportunity and provided the manned guarding security shakes off its complacency and the government really does recognise the potential, the security industry is a valuable resource. It is full of highly experienced and committed individuals whio could make a major contribution to the country and has shown its worth through corporate security practitioners. However the SIA is a new organisation and we must give it and the new execs total guidance and support. Although further debate is counter-productive, Molly Meacher and John Saunders (the new chief executive) both have a very steep learning curve in a very short time."
<br><br>
Home Secretary David Blunkett officially opened Shannon Court, headquarters of the new Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in Liverpool on March 1. The silence however continues to be deafening over how the CRB can possibly work promptly and authoritatively, given that the Police National Computer has long-standing troubles over inaccurate and delayed inputting of data. Professional Security sent the CRB a copy of the article in last month’s issue – that police forces are struggling to meet the CRB’s already-put-back deadline to input data dating from before July 2000, casting doubt on screening of security officers by any Private Security Industry Authority. The CRB did not reply. The Home Office admits that the CRB is a ‘major part of the Government’s programme to put in place improved arrangements for protecting children and vulnerable adults and will provide employees and volunteers with disclosures detailing criminal convictions’.
<br><br>
April and May 2001 saw the Private Security Industry Bill pass the committee stage in the Commons.
<br><br>
First sitting, April 10
<br><br>
Chaired by Nicholas Winterton, Bruce George MP opened by calling the Bill ‘a goodish Bill, but others are far better’ and stressing the need for good enforcing of regulation, and a review in three years, during the next parliament. Many of the Bill’s provisions will be left to delegated legislation, he said. Pointing out how many resources go into monitoring the police, Mr George said: ‘It would be folly beyond words to impose a minuscule structure to secure accountability and effectiveness in the private security industry and ensure that the number of crooks in the industry is kept to a minimum. A larger structure is required, although it should not be an out-of-touch, out-of-control bureaucracy.’ He added: ‘Sufficient resources must be allocated to the inspections process. Local authorities must be able to cut the mustard in their regulation of door supervisors and bouncers.’ The appeals process, and whether licenced people would have to work under different regulation in Scotland, were also raised by Mr George. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) said the Opposition was not opposed in principle to the Bill, but had reservations about how the Security Industry Authority quango was to be set up. Mr Hawkins said: ‘The authority should spend much more of its time considering those who constitute the dark side of the industry.’
<br><br>
Second sitting, April 24
<br><br>
Mr Hawkins quoted Michelle Mackleston from Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffs, a qualified training officer for SITO (Security Industry Training Organisation), a former warrant officer in the armed forces, who wrote of people in the security industry for years without any basic training. Mr George said: ‘Responsibility will be divided between the Home Office and the regulatory body. That is the best model because it is the most flexible.’ He called for a ‘broad regulatory system’ that took in security fields not due to be licenced, such as alarms. Ian Stewart (Eccles) said of the ‘cowboy’ end of the industry: ‘A large number of people involved at that end of the industry pursue their activities within the black economy. That militates against good and proper standards in the industry …’ Home Office Minister Charles Clarke said: ‘I make it clear that where security responsibility is incidental to a person’s main employment, the Bill does not cover that individual. An illustration is that the bouncer is covered but not the barman, because the bouncer is retained specifically for security responsibilities as the main part of his employment.’ In a debate over whether the Home Secretary could affect the SIA ruling on granting a licence, Mr George said there may be exceptional cases where the Home Secretary could refuse a licence, speaking of Russia: ‘a high percentage of private security companies are run either by the KGB or criminal gangs. What if such an organisation set up a branch in this country for the purpose of investigation or to pursue people for the Russian Government” Mr Clarke said: ‘it is not the case that the Secretary of State can direct the SIA to issue or not issue a licence to a particular individual’.
<br><br>
Chances of the Private Security Industry Act reaching the statute book are ‘very high’, Home Office Minister Charles Clarke told the House of Commons on March 28 during the second reading of the Bill. After a seven-hour debate the Bill has gone into its committee stage, to finish by May 1. Despite important points of detail, there is broad cross-party consensus on the legislation, Mr Clarke said. Tory speakers such as Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) raised some objections. Mr Hawkins called for any regulation to avoid ‘unnecessary, overly complex, bureaucratic or burdensome regulations’, fearing that the quango in charge of licences will keep on raising fees. He voiced fears that the public register of licensed persons and their addresses could lead to grudge attacks. He called for safeguards: ‘We are all aware of cases in which, sadly, private revenge attacks involve the arson of business premises.’ Some police officers and Crown Prosecution Service staff fear intimidation from criminals who find their addresses via the electoral register, Mr Hawkins added. He asked whether regulation was ‘really an attempt to provide a statutory framework for the kind of private policing arrangements that the Government envisage in their so-called 10-year crime plan’. Mr Clarke denied any blurring between public and private police forces. Sir Norman Fowler said: ‘What I do not support is the use of private security to patrol our streets. That, I think, is where a line should be drawn. Such a use of private security would take us back to square one: after all, it was the breakdown of private patrols that led to the establishment of an organised police service in the first place.’ Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) who has the UK base of Group 4 in his constituency, repeated Group 4’s message: ‘the Bill contains no measure that a good company should not be pursuing already’. He added: ‘… it is possible for people to be on the dole one hour, and in uniform and serving in very sensitive public places the next. I understand that that has happened in some prominent public buildings in London. The absence of a criminal record does not mean that a person is fit and proper to engage in sensitive public activities.’He claimed: ‘… the Government are obviously trying to privatise the police through the back door and to use the private sector more intensively than before’. In an 80-minute speech Bruce George revealed his father was a police officer who became ‘head of security of the Coal Board in Wales’. He admitted the bill is not as detailed as he would like, and called for intruder alarm installers and designers to be included, saying some ‘dreadful’ firms are operating. He criticised the bill’s narrow scope, adding: ‘If I must identify a single cause of the malaise in the industry, it is this: the public who hire want good security without being prepared to pay for it.’ He predicted: ‘Technological growth will force many companies to choose between employing better technology or more people.’ Great legislation is a waste of time unless there is a decent inspectorate, Mr George said; he criticised Home Office Minister Lord Bassam for stating recently in the House of Lords that the inspectorate may inspect during reasonable hours only: ‘The time to catch people cheating is in unreasonable hours, and I do not know how the Under-Secretary, Lord Bassam, acquiesced in that nonsense.’ For SITO to be included, it must be de-linked from BSIA, and similarly Mr George called for an inspectorate to be the Home Office’s rather than subcontracted to a body closely linked to the industry or insurers.He concluded: ‘Regulation by itself will not be a panacea. The industry will still require ingenuity, good investment, good people and the use of universities and teaching courses in security. Regulation can, however, make a significant contribution despite the Bill’s imperfections and omissions.’ Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey) suggested returning to the bill after a forthcoming election rather than rushing through the legislation. Mr George replied that the bill was ‘not a great Bill, but it is a potentially good one’. Winding up the debate, Mr Clarke said: ‘We want a genuinely independent, strong regulatory body–not one that is the lapdog of either the Home Secretary of the day or the industry.’
<br><br>
Mr George pointed out: ‘Private security has grown because it is a good industry to enter for people who want to make a profit. The increase in terrorism and environmental protest, the demands of insurance companies, the Government’s commitment to privatisation, Governments’ failures adequately to fund the police, the growth of mass ownership of property that is "worth nicking", the role of advertising, changes in technology and the deregulated nature of the market are all contributory factors.’
<br><br>
Consultants can still have input in the Private Security Industry Act, Home Office Minister Charles Clarke told the House of Commons during its second reading on March 28, 2001. He said: ‘Nobody will be regulated by the Bill without their full knowledge and understanding. All relevant types of security consultant will be invited to participate in the authority’s consultations at the appropriate time.’ Much else appears to be in the air still – Scotland is to decide separately whether it will regulate; and local authorities may carry on licensing their area’s door staff, if they wish, while the Security Industry Authority (SIA) sets the licence criteria. Nor did Mr Clarke promise that public contracts for security services will not be awarded to companies failing to meet SIA standards. The approved contractor scheme – ‘a system whereby providers of security services who meet certain standards can obtain recognition from the SIA’, Mr Clarke said – will be voluntary, though it may become compulsory. A public register will list every licensed person and the terms they are licensed upon, Mr Clarke said: ‘The public and the police will thus be able to establish clearly whether an individual is properly licensed to engage in regulated security activities.’
<br><br>
Earlier in the debate Jackie Ballard (Taunton) queried Mr Clarke’s use of the figure of 350,000 people in the security industry; he admitted that he had previously used the figure 250,000, but added: ‘but it indicates the importance of the sector to all our lives. As I said, despite the sector’s size and role, no proper regulation is in place. <br>
It is not surprising, therefore, that the public have severe reservations about the activities of those sectors of the industry that are prone to exploitation by rogue elements. That is why both the industry and the police have long sought statutory regulation. We believe that a statutory framework is the most effective way to drive out the undesirable elements and thus increase public confidence in the industry.’ Mr Clarke welcomed the contribution from Walsall South senior Labour MP BRice George: ‘I think that the success of such measures largely depends on how good the regulatory system is, how much the security industry is respected and the close relationship between private security and the police. If they trust each other, and the public trust those involved in private security, crime prevention is much more successful than when the police and the public are alienated from the industry.’ Sutton Coldfield MP and former Conservative Minister Sir Norman Fowler, who introduced an unsuccessful industry regulation bill in 1973 and who declared he was once a director of Group 4 asked why alarm installers were not covered in the bill, though they were in the 1999 White Paper. Sir Norman paid tribute to Jorgen Philip Sorensen, head of Group 4, for his efforts towards licensing, and pointed out that most European Union countries have private security industry regulation. Sir Norman added: ‘The problem with the licensing system that is being introduced is not what is included, but what is excluded.’ Mr Clarke replied: ‘We made the change [re alarm installers] because the better regulation taskforce, which considers burdens on industry, examined the extent to which legislation was needed to tackle crime in the alarm installation industry. We concluded that the need to tackle criminality was not clear enough to justify the inclusion of such a provision in the Bill.’ Later Mr Clarke commented: ‘the Bill already gives the SIA a major task, and we do not want further to front-load its waiting list of people to license. We prefer to get the authority up and running with the duties given to it by the Bill in its present form, and then to listen to the voice of experience as it emerges.’
<br><br>
IT concern
<br><br>
Mr Clarke admitted to ‘concern’ over whether information security staff will fall under any PSIA Act: ‘Just as with tangible assets, there are real threats to the security of information and security advice, and precautions are needed to protect it. At present, there is no regulation of the information security industry. However, the Government are committed to regulating only where necessary. The Department of Trade and Industry will therefore consult the information security industry on the extent and effectiveness of existing precautions–protected measures–and whether further action is required.’ Mr Clarke spoke of the sectors covered in the bill: ‘There are two main groups: first, those providing manned guarding services and, secondly, those engaged in immobilising vehicles–wheelclampers. Manned guarding is a diverse activity, but it has the common feature of guarding premises, property or people. The Bill proposes that individuals in the manned guarding sector should be licensed if they provide services under contract to a client. We do not generally propose to require them to have licences if they are employed in-house by companies. Those companies will already have satisfied themselves about their employees, and the Government do not intend to add an additional layer of checking where it is not necessary.’The government is not closed to the arguments for regulating in-house staff, he added. Mr Clarke went into detail about wheelclamping: ‘We believe that that gap in the law needs to be filled, which is why the Bill ensures that all wheelclamping on private land carried out as a business or as part of one’s employment, or for a release fee, will be regulated by a licensing system. Each individual who provides wheelclamping services to others will therefore need a licence, as will his or her director or manager.’ He repeated that a licence will cost £35 to £40: ‘A fee of £40 for a three-year licence is equivalent to 25p a week.’
Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath) said: ‘The Opposition’s approach to the Bill is that it should not place unnecessary, overly complex, bureaucratic or burdensome regulations on the legitimate sector of the industry.’ Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North) welcomed the bill, to raise standards and prevent contract manned guarding firms under-cutting on price, giving a case of a manned security guard at a site from Friday evening to Monday morning without a break. He and another speaker, Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North), declared themselves members of the GMB union. David Lammy (Tottenham) declared that as a student in 1991 he was a security guard in central London: ‘I know that many young men and women–both black and white–take up such employment primarily so that they can read their law or biology books while they are on night patrol, ensuring that buildings are kept safe and sound.’
<br><br>
Also taking part in the debate were John Bercow (Buckingham); Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield); and Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) who praised the bill to help community order in tourism towns. He and Rosie Winterton (Doncaster, Central) stressed the wheel-clamping side of the Bill. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) condemned the government for turning down Spalding’s bid for CCTV; Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) feared two-tier policing; he has Group 4’s HQ in his constituency too, and described Group 4 director David Dickinson as a ‘good friend’. Mr Clifton-Brown pointed out that Mr Dickinson supervised the guarding operation for those asylum seekers from a hijacked Afghan aircraft, who were temporarily housed at the fire service college in his constituency. Mr Clifton-Brown quoted what Mr Dickinson said of the Bill: ‘Self-regulation has failed. There are too many horror stories around and too many people who are engaging in criminality under the cloak of the private security industry.’ Mr Clifton-Brown added: ‘Most of us would say amen to that.’
Facts from the debate: 130,000 young people are out and about in central Manchester at 2am on Saturday and Sunday, and about 10,000 in Norwich, Mr Clarke’s constituency: of 2,000 manned guarding companies in the UK, 1,600 – four fifths, or 80 per cent – have 50 or fewer employees.
<br><br>
From Professional Security print edition, April 2001
<br><br>
Whether private security regulation goes far enough, and whether police are equipped to take charge of private security patrollers, were among the points raised by Brian Geary, head of Broadland Guarding. He said: ‘I have been in the industry 31 years and I have yet to find a policeman who understands the security industry.’ He felt that the regulation drafters had taken a ‘soft line’ by not linking licences to any standards: ‘My officers will have a licence that says they have no criminal record. It isn’t sufficient really.’ Employers dismiss employees for theft rather than prosecuting them, which would not register on a criminal record check, Brian argued, adding: ‘People are reluctant to give bad references, anyway. The cowboys will still be there, they will just have a licence. We are just having licencing for licencing’s sake. It is now up to the industry to drive this forward. We need to talk about training, insurance, supervision, the structure of the company. You can still run, from the top of a cafe, licenced officers – it isn’t on.’ The Norwich-based guarding firm is a member of The Security Watchdog.
<br><br>
The man in charge of security at Alton Towers, the Staffordshire visitor attraction, welcomes Jack Straw’s proposed use of private security co-ordinated by police – but makes the point that such co-operation is already happening. Brian Ward, divisional director of security for Tussauds Group, told Professional Security that Alton Towers draws nearly three million visitors a year; the venue’s in-house security team deals with all security-related matters, ‘because the local people are very few and far between and it’s very rare to call police in. We deal with everything internally and externally. Most of my staff are ex-police.’ For instance, Alton Towers monitors 24-7 the municipal CCTV in the nearby town of Cheadle. ‘We have built up credibility with the local police – they know our standards are very high.’ He welcomed accredited private security patrols in public, provided that the standard was high and that the private security patrollers did not have full police powers. Brian is security consultant on the British Airways London Eye.
<br><br>
The police are ‘hopeless’ and there should be much more use in the UK of the private security industry, argues the free-market Adam Smith Institute. Dr Eamonn Butler, pictured, of the London-based ASI told Professional Security that council estate tenants should be allowed to hire their own policing, and enjoy some tax advatanges if they are not thereby using public services so much. He said: ‘The police are pretty hopeless and they are pretty hopeless because they are a nationalised industry which is increasingly centralised and drawing away from its customers, so to speak, and like many big public services it tends to become more and more professionalised. I believe police can out-source a lot of things – freight management and back office staff. We still have highly trained police doing secretarial work, which is a complete waste of time. One does simply need to have a lot more private security.’ On industry regulation, he said: ‘Obviously one needs a private security industry that people trust, but you don’t want what happens so often – the big players decided what the rules are going to be to squeeze out competition.’
<br><br>
Reliance Security has for many years co-operated with the police throughout the UK, Ken Allison, Reliance Chairman, commented: ‘There is significant potential for the private security sector to contribute alongside other agencies and businesses in the common objective to reduce crime. Any such involvement should always be under the control and guidance of the police service. The industry has a vast workforce in excess of 100,000 people which with proper guidance can provide cost-effective support to the police.’
<br><br>
Dr John Berry, chairman of the National Association of Security Dog Users (NASDU) stresses that the association is ‘100 per cent behind the introduction of the PSIB’: ‘We will also welcome the formation of the proposed SIA. Licencing and legislation are long overdue. What we hope is that the SIA listen to the wider industry, 80% of which has asked that training be a condition of licencing. I believe that on top of ensuring that the security officer is suitable to work within the industry, training is the only way by which standards will be raised and schemes such as Jack Straw is suggesting, can be achieved. NASDU members would welcome the opportunity to work along side the police service but the security dog industry has its own peculiarities. It is still the only sector that has legislation attached to it, namely the Guard Dogs Act 1975. This Act covers dogs that work on private property and premises. Once we move into the public domain we then full under the Dangerous Dogs Legislation of 1991 and this piece of law makes it virtually impossible for us to use our dogs at all. We do believe that we have a role to play in assisting the police. We may need to have the Guard Dogs legislation changed to assist us and we are currently working on that project. We will ned to show that our members are capable of providing trained dogs to the standard expected of the police. Once established, the private sector could provide response dog units who are specifically trained to track offenders from the scene of a crime, to search for stolen and discarded items of property, to search for missing persons, to search for drugs and explosives. None of the disciplines I have mentioned are beyond the realms of possibility. But none of these things will happen if we don’t get the PSIB through the House of Commons before the end of this Parliament. This is a crucial time for the security industry. It is vital that it succeeds, if it doesn’t I can’t see legislation being considered for at least another ten years. Security Dog Handlers, as I read it, are security officers with dogs and therefore will need to be licenced. The dog is not included in any plans I have heard about so it is up to NASDU to try to encourage all users to train and qualify to its required criteria. Licencing will help the cause.
